Case 2203155/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs N Kumar v v Warehouse Fashions Limited — 2022

Case reference: 2203155/2020
Decision date: 3 February 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Hawksworth Date

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs N Kumar v

Respondent

Warehouse Fashions Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The respondent stated that it did not contest the claimant's claim for a protective award. The tribunal issued judgment under rule 21 without a hearing, finding the complaint of failure to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 well-founded.

The tribunal found that the respondent proposed to make 91 redundancies at its Olivers Yard site, did not fully inform and consult with the claimant under section 188, gave no proper warning or consultation, and had no employee representatives elected or appointed for consultation as required under section 188A.

The tribunal made a protective award under section 189 for the maximum protected period of 90 days beginning on 15 April 2020. The claimant's notice pay claim was noted, with notice of a separate hearing to be sent.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Protective award claim for failure to comply with collective consultation requirements under section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The separate notice pay claim was not adjudicated in this judgment.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.